I'm pretty sure Maro admitted on one of his somewhat recent podcasts that certain cards are printed in certain frequencies for draft purposes. I think it was the one about boosters.
This just sounds like rarity which is obviously a thing. If its about the 121st common then we know already that that one common is 1/5th more common other commons. People are talking about a much larger thing going on.
well it cannot be truly random, we don't have the technology, for it to be functionally 'randomized', some cards will be printed more than others, and Wizards has the ability to control which ones those are. they admit to having done it for years, so I don't see the burden of proof as actually being on the people trying to prove that they are still doing it. the people arguing against it, their argument is based on the assumption that they ever stopped. sure, they said they did, but did they ever give us a reason to believe that? they hide so much from us, they filter what we are allowed to see so carefully. they have to program the machines in some way, they know what the chase cards will be, there is no reason to think that they wouldn't make those cards more rare than others with the same symbol.
so instead of asking why we think they started again, why do you think they stopped? has to be something better than 'the company that never acknowledged the decline in card stock when a toddler could see that it was fact said so'
This is a classic example of why I have a hard time getting behind some arguments. You have part of a decent argument, did they ever really atop?, but its sprinkled with some intelligent sounding garbage that has nothing to do with the conversation. Why are you talking about random we know they don't print randomly they are very open about that. And we know they don't stuff packs randomly. They are less open aboutthat but have stated their algorithm for stuffing packs adjusts what commons and possibly uncommons and rares end up in a pack so it works better in draft because actual random would occasionally produce packs with 15 red cards and that's bad for draft. But pack stuffing had nothing to do with printing so why are you bring it up if not to pad a shoddy argument with something 'true' that sounds smart?
well it cannot be truly random, we don't have the technology, for it to be functionally 'randomized'
Well that's simply not true. The technology for true randomness absolutely exists. It can't be done without specialized-purpose hardware, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And any project that can't include special hardware can query random.org's API, which does use specialized hardware.
This is a classic example of why I have a hard time getting behind some arguments. You have part of a decent argument, did they ever really atop?, but its sprinkled with some intelligent sounding garbage that has nothing to do with the conversation. Why are you talking about random we know they don't print randomly they are very open about that. And we know they don't stuff packs randomly. They are less open aboutthat but have stated their algorithm for stuffing packs adjusts what commons and possibly uncommons and rares end up in a pack so it works better in draft because actual random would occasionally produce packs with 15 red cards and that's bad for draft. But pack stuffing had nothing to do with printing so why are you bring it up if not to pad a shoddy argument with something 'true' that sounds smart?
That... has nothing to do with whether things are truly random or not.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)